Yellowstone related news and Yellowstone related politics. Notes: Do not cut and paste entire news items; you may post snippets, if the source is clearly attributed. And keep the political hot button discussions civil and courteous! Stay on topic - no thread "Hijacking"!

1975 to 1984 the park averaged 2.28 million visitors per year1985 to 1994 the park averaged 2.36 million visitors per year, an increase of 3.5%wolves introduced in 19951995 to 2004 the park averaged 2.93 million visitors per year, an increase of 24%2005 to 2011 the park averaged 3.11 million visitors--------------------I don't know how much of that 24% increase is due to wolves, but if you add one variable and see a huge increase like that, it clearly is a major factor in that increase.

I think, if nothing else, adding the wolves put YNP at the forefront of the news and people like me, who hadn't been before, started checking it out and realizing it would make a great vacation. And, of course, once you go, you have to keep going. I don't go for the wolves, although I enjoy seeing them when I do, I love it all, but again, the news stories put it in people's faces and I think that could have more to do with it than actually seeing wolves.

Ria wrote:I think, if nothing else, adding the wolves put YNP at the forefront of the news and people like me, who hadn't been before, started checking it out and realizing it would make a great vacation. And, of course, once you go, you have to keep going. I don't go for the wolves, although I enjoy seeing them when I do, I love it all, but again, the news stories put it in people's faces and I think that could have more to do with it than actually seeing wolves.

Ain't that it though? The stories, the hype, the news got you interested in going to Yellowstone. It's all part of the package. The place got a bit more interesting to people when wolves were reintroduced. In 1990, there were no wolves. No one went to the park for the moose in 1990. No one went for the bison. Or the waterfalls. They went for the whole package. Same as today. The package is a bit more attractive now that wolves are there and the visitation is up considerably.

Wolves were not a factor in my first trip to Yellowstone at all. In fact, I'm embarrassed to say I knew little of the reintroduction nor the conflict surrounding it. That first visit I was all about seeing a Grizzly. We only had part of a day to spend in the park and were on a mission to see one. When we saw a man pulled over looking across Hayden Valley with binoculars, we stopped to see what he was looking at. He told us there was a wolf napping under a tree. So we grabbed our binoculars to take a look. That was my first sighting of what I now call a "wolf dot". But it was enough to make me do a little googlng on my iPhone on our way back to Jackson Hole. Within minutes, I was hooked and just kept clicking on all the wolf information I could find. This continued through the next day as we prepared to fly home to Arkansas. I found http://www.yellowstonereports.com right before we boarded the plane. I remember trying to type as fast as I could so that I could complete my subscription and payment before we pulled away from the gate and had to turn off our phones. Thus began my daily morning ritual of reading Yellowstone Reports. That led to booking a trip with The Wild Side which led to another, then another, then another. I am currently in countdown mode for our next stay at the Buffalo Ranch in 203 days. I love Yellowstone but I don't know if I would continue to be drawn to it the way I am if wolves had not been reintroduced. I know there is more to the park than wolves. There are the thermal features, the lakes, the hiking trails, the back country etc. But it is the wolves that have given us a window into truly wild nature as God created it. Humans have made so many mistakes when it comes to preserving truly wild spaces. To me, Yellowstone is proof that those wrongs CAN be righted. I know it seems like us wolf lovers anthropomorphise them but it's so hard not to fall in love with such a powerful symbol of pure wildness. When you read the daily reports and see how hard it really is for them to survive, how many times they fail before they finally succeed in taking down prey, how many times they are injured or killed while hunting, how they must defend their territory from other packs, how they suffer from the human introduced health issues of distemper and mange and how an invisible park boundary is the only thing protecting them from being gunned down, you can't help but root for them. It is the wildness of the wolves that keep us coming back and spending thousands for lodging, transportation, souvenirs and supplies in the gateway communities. The wolves may not be the only reason for the increase in visitors, but I know that they are the reason we, and many others we have met there, keep coming back.

Ria wrote:I think, if nothing else, adding the wolves put YNP at the forefront of the news and people like me, who hadn't been before, started checking it out and realizing it would make a great vacation. And, of course, once you go, you have to keep going. I don't go for the wolves, although I enjoy seeing them when I do, I love it all, but again, the news stories put it in people's faces and I think that could have more to do with it than actually seeing wolves.

Ain't that it though? The stories, the hype, the news got you interested in going to Yellowstone. It's all part of the package. The place got a bit more interesting to people when wolves were reintroduced. In 1990, there were no wolves. No one went to the park for the moose in 1990. No one went for the bison. Or the waterfalls. They went for the whole package. Same as today. The package is a bit more attractive now that wolves are there and the visitation is up considerably.

I guess you're right. It isn't what keeps me coming back, but it was what put it enough on my radar to go. Of course, mom and dad had been going since the mid 80's and it wasn't until 2000 that circumstances worked out for me to go, but I think the stream of news stories put it over the top.

I have been going to Yellowstone since 1942. I would have been thrilled to see a wild wolf, but can't say I am impressed with semi habituated wolves. On the other hand I must admit the bears and elk are also semi habituated. It is ironic that those biologists upset with a change in the fauna in Yellowstone by early managers have made far more dramatic changes when they supposedly know better. In fact the early buffalo killed were not by managers, but by one man named Howell, who killed 12, I believe it was in Pelican Valley.

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” — Ronald Reagan

I can honestly say, I have never visited Yellowstone to see wolves, and I was there the day they turned them loose, I have wolves that virtually live in my back yard, they are howling again this evening. I will continue to visit Yellowstone for everything it offers, and that includes wolves, but wolves in no way drive my desire to visit Yellowstone.

For me its "ALL" about the Apex predators. Wolves...you bet, and right behind em Grizzly....and in my dreams, maybe one day a Lion! Its the predators that put the drama in the park, and that edge of your seat, never know what will happen next...is what keeps calling me back.

"Wilderness isn't the wide open places, but the wild things that fill it." Chris Morgan

Elk, inn my experience the animals in the backcountry (Mt. Washburn doesn't count. Those sheep would probably eat out your hands if you cared to try.) are much more wary of humans than the roadside animals.

Dave, I agree with your sentiment entirely. I love everything about the park (well, not everything) - including the wolves - but they alone do not fuel my desire to visit the park.

buffalogirl, there would be no predators, and therefore no drama, without the prey species as well.

ELK wrote:In fact the early buffalo killed were not by managers, but by one man named Howell, who killed 12, I believe it was in Pelican Valley.

That's what they caught him with at that time. He was known to poach bison in the park before that. They just hadn't had the press around when they had caught him or others. The difference was an article penned by a reporter.

It was in the Pelican Valley in October of 1883 that soldiers caught Edgar Howell of Cooke City slaughtering five bison. Emerson Hough (1857-1923) was then writing for George Bird Grinnell's Forest and Stream for $15.00 a month. In the March 13, 1884, edition of the magazine he pointed out the absurdity of the penalties for poaching in Yellowstone. All that could be done was expel Howell from the Park only to have him return again. Hough reported that there were only about 100 bison left in the park. Public outrage resulted in the passage of the Lacey Act providing for real penalties for harming animals within the park. Hough later went on to write the Curly cowboy series in the Saturday Evening Post, Passing of the Frontier and The Covered Wagon, devoted to the Texas cattle trails and the Oregon Trail. As was Grinnell, Hough was a personal friend of Theodore Roosevelt.

Troops enforced park regulations vigorously, patrolling on horseback during the summer and on skis during the winter. Their most persistent problem was controlling poachers. During the latter part of the 1800s, bison had been nearly exterminated from the American West and the last free-ranging herd had taken refuge in the wilds of Yellowstone. Unfortunately, this was a bit like going out of the fire into the frying pan, as the activities of poachers were a constant threat to these last remaining animals. The maximum punishment the Army could impose for this crime was to confiscate a poacher's belongings and banish him from the park. However, it proved nearly impossible to prevent him from returning. Most poachers were local residents who knew the area well and could slip in and out of the park boundaries without being noticed. In the spring of 1894, Army officers learned that an infamous bison poacher named Edgar Howell was camped in Yellowstone's Pelican Valley. Howell was caught literally red-handed, blood staining his hands as he skinned a bison he had just killed. Soldiers escorted him back to Army headquarters in Mammoth Hot Springs, where they intended to hold Howell for as long as possible in the guard house. As luck would have it, en route, they encountered a group of visitors, one of whom was a prominent reporter of the New York magazine, Forest and Stream. Appalled at hearing about the minor punishment Howell would receive for his poaching activities, the reporter wired the story to his editor.

Reading Emmerson Hough's article about it in Schullery's Old Yellowstone Days,he packed in on homemade snowshoes pulling his sled. He had 6 heads stashed at his camp, wrapped in gunny saks and in a tree to keep the wolves, (yes it says wolves) from getting them, he had killed another 5 animals and was in the process of skinning them when captured. They speculated that more were killed, but so far as I have been able to tell, never proven. they did find Indians had killed 19 southeast of the park and they tracked down 7 heads that had been offered to a Bozeman taxidermist. They estimated only 200 left. At the time the tame buffs were imported 8 years later in 1902, they felt there were only about 23 wild buffs in Pelican Valley. Acccording to Chittenden they did try to move the Pelican Valley buffs to an area with less snow, but it wasn't successful.By the way, Burgess, the army man who arrested Howell froze his great toe bringing him in and could barely walk.

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” — Ronald Reagan

I've been going to Yellowstone Park every year since 1981. While it's exciting to see wolves, for me, they have never been the reason for going to Yellowstone Park. While I love seeing wolves I get more excited seeing bears and just as excited seeing coyotes, otters, fox, etc. There have been many trips where we've never seen a bear or a wolf and we're enjoyed the trip just as much. Deb

"There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast." ~ Unknown"Today is your day, your mountain is waiting, so get on your way." ~ Dr. Seuss

I didn't first go to the park because of the wolves, I went to get some fishing in. But once I caught on to the wolves and how absolutely fascinating they are, well, it certainly has kept me coming back. I gotta admit I was always kinda apprehensive about the bears, but the more time I spent in the park watching the wolves, the better I felt about my ability to make good decisions about keeping safe from the bears.

for me, the wolves are the major experience in the park. Fishing and the geological features come in a close second.

I'm glad to see that the visitor numbers went up dramatically once wolves were reintroduced. No its not any kinda definitive evidence that the wolves were what drove visitor numbers, but it sure does look suspicious .

Based on my math from the published NPS statistics for recreational visitors to Yellowstone, the average number of yearly visitors for the decade 1975 to 1984 was 2,231,215 and for the decade 1985 to 1994 it was 2,683,652.

That is an increase of 15.61% over the prior decade.

The average number of yearly visitors during the decade from 1995 to 2004 was 2,973,731. That is an increase of 10.81% over the prior decade.

The seven year average from 2005 to 2011 was 3,179,08. An increase of 6.91% over the prior decade.

Just for fun I ran the numbers for Rocky Mountain National Park. They had a visitor increase of 15.20% when comparing the decade 1985-1994 with the decade 1995-2004 - a 4.39% better gain in visitor numbers than Yellowstone with no wolves in sight.

Therefore I do not see how you can conclude that the introduction of wolves in 1995 had a major impact on visitation when the decade to decade increase in visitor numbers was actually better in Yellowstone before wolves were introduced (comparing the period 1975/1984 to 1985/1994 with the period 1985/1994 to 1995/2004). In fact the rate of increase in visitation actually went down after the introduction of wolves to the park.

Using your logic, you could come to the conclusion that some people were scared away from visiting the park by the reintroduction of wolves.

The people who post on this forum are not in any way representative of the average tourist who visits Yellowstone. Just read the Yellowstone forum on Trip Advisor if you have any doubt about that.

There are perhaps 100 people who actively participate in these discussions over the course of a year - compared to 3,394,326 recreational visitors to Yellowstone listed for 2011 on the NPS web site. Many (or at least the most vocal) on here have very specific interests in the park - wolves, elk, bears, photography, etc. rather than being what I consider "generalists" - people who enjoy the full range of what Yellowstone has to offer on each visit.

I know you all want to push for your own agenda on here but sometimes it goes way beyond fuzzy logic.

To state that the reintroduction of wolves into the park is responsible for a major increase in visitation to the park is not supported by either the numbers or the reality of the typical Yellowstone visitors, who make up the vast majority of the numbers we are throwing around in this discussion.

In the park the day of the 1959 earthquake. My next visit is September, 2015 and I'll be at the YA program "Into the Heart of the Yellowstone Volcano."

BlackDragonsCaldron wrote:As I said in another post, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

Based on my math from the published NPS statistics for recreational visitors to Yellowstone, the average number of yearly visitors for the decade 1975 to 1984 was 2,231,215 and for the decade 1985 to 1994 it was 2,683,652.

That is an increase of 15.61% over the prior decade.

The average number of yearly visitors during the decade from 1995 to 2004 was 2,973,731. That is an increase of 10.81% over the prior decade.

The seven year average from 2005 to 2011 was 3,179,08. An increase of 6.91% over the prior decade.

Just for fun I ran the numbers for Rocky Mountain National Park. They had a visitor increase of 15.20% when comparing the decade 1985-1994 with the decade 1995-2004 - a 4.39% better gain in visitor numbers than Yellowstone with no wolves in sight.

Therefore I do not see how you can conclude that the introduction of wolves in 1995 had a major impact on visitation when the decade to decade increase in visitor numbers was actually better in Yellowstone before wolves were introduced (comparing the period 1975/1984 to 1985/1994 with the period 1985/1994 to 1995/2004). In fact the rate of increase in visitation actually went down after the introduction of wolves to the park.

Using your logic, you could come to the conclusion that some people were scared away from visiting the park by the reintroduction of wolves.

The people who post on this forum are not in any way representative of the average tourist who visits Yellowstone. Just read the Yellowstone forum on Trip Advisor if you have any doubt about that.

There are perhaps 100 people who actively participate in these discussions over the course of a year - compared to 3,394,326 recreational visitors to Yellowstone listed for 2011 on the NPS web site. Many (or at least the most vocal) on here have very specific interests in the park - wolves, elk, bears, photography, etc. rather than being what I consider "generalists" - people who enjoy the full range of what Yellowstone has to offer on each visit.

I know you all want to push for your own agenda on here but sometimes it goes way beyond fuzzy logic.

To state that the reintroduction of wolves into the park is responsible for a major increase in visitation to the park is not supported by either the numbers or the reality of the typical Yellowstone visitors, who make up the vast majority of the numbers we are throwing around in this discussion.

Both you and the original poster are oversimplifying things. There are many factors in play that could explain why the rate of increase has stagnated (population dynamics, economic conditions, cultural shifts, etc.). It's obviously ridiculous to compare the rate of increase in Yellowstone's visitation with that of RMNP because Colorado as a state has grown at a far faster rate during the decades you mention than the states that make up Yellowstone.

The fact of the matter is that there is a sizable group of Yellowstone's visitors that likely would not be there if it weren't for wolves, people who spend money at the local hotels, restaurants, gas stations, stores, etc. I, myself, would not spend a month and a couple thousand bucks in Gardiner each winter if it weren't for wolves. There are plenty of people just like me that would not make winter trips to YNP for wildlife photography if it weren't for wolves. This is even more true of the wolf-watchers. Just ask the people who own lodging establishments in Gardiner and Silver Gate/Cooke City what wolves have done for them, especially during the formerly slow time of year; the winter. This economic benefit should not be overlooked or understated.

Once again as not only I, but others have pointed out, if there truly was a huge influx of money into Yellowstone, we would have seen building of motels and restaurants, if not gift shops, in Gardiner and Cooke City to accomodate all of those people with money to spend and wolves on their mind. Like it or not closing of a restaurant and gift shop in West Yellowstone is not indicative of a big increase in spending in one of the two towns one would expect wolves to have a positive impact on.

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” — Ronald Reagan

I have to agree that most people on this forum are not the average visitor to YNP. The thought that first came to my mind about increase visitation was economics and generation. Our first trip was in June 1990. We actually went to YNP because of a bike rally in Cody that year. I had no real clue what was waiting for me inside the park other than some animals and Old Faithful. To me it was like a dream come true after watching other kids while growing up in the 70's go on vacations like this. Honey Bunches and I were in the perfect spot to take off on trips at that time. We had the money, no children yet, and he was in better physical condition. From that point on my visits to the park were for the whole package such as sites, nature, animals, and even the goofy tourist.

I am sure a small portion of the increase visitation could come from those that are interested in wolves but to say that it caused the increase I just don't buy that. I think that in each generation there are groups of people that hear the call of the mountains, natures wonders, and the amazing animals and they answer that call.

Hmmmmm I wouldn't think that comparing the two parks visitor numbers would give an accurate look at the impact of reintroduction. For instance these two parks, Cherry Creek Res. and Chatfield Res. are about the most visited state parks in the country, last I heard. There proximity to the 3 million or so people just in the greater metro area plays a huge role. RMNP is also just a stones throw away from massive numbers of potential day trippers. But if you want to go to Yellowstone, that same day tripper is going to have to plan on a week. I allow a full day just for arrival and departure, so we're talking two entirely different realities. The amount of cash most people would have to spend to dedicate a week in the park far outweighs the day trippers and weekend warriors who might take the relatively short drive from Denver or FT Collins to RMNP

Given that even during the economic downturn visitor numbers still increased in Yellowstone is a very encouraging sign. I'm not sure if anyone else on here has been out to the observation points in the Lamar valley and Soda butte areas in the busy season but if you don't think the wolves are driving visitor numbers, go see for yourself. Its bedlam out there. At some point there going to have to build bigger turn outs.

I'm not surprised to see some folks questioning the numbers and some good points have been raised. But no mater how you slice it, wolves are increasing visitor numbers by some percentage. They are also increasing the amount of research money aimed at the park, mostly through private donations to the wolf project team. But some federal money as well.

The park and the communities on its periphery seem to have survived the economic collapse in pretty good shape. Now lets see if they can survive there efforts to exterminate the wolves once these tourists have had a chance to appreciate the reality of these beautiful and completely innocuous animals. They didn't end ranching in the midwest, they didn't eat all the children, the elk are just fine, the ecosystem is healthier than it has been in a long time and there are a significant number of people who specifically came to the park just to observe the wolves. Seems to be working out just fine for just about everyone except those few neanderthals who just cant catch up with the times.

AZTA wrote:buffalogirl, there would be no predators, and therefore no drama, without the prey species as well.

Perhaps I should try to clarify my thoughts. I love Yellowstone.....all of it. I love the flora, fauna, landscape and most especially the wildlife. In YS, its not the destination, its the journey. I have often found myself feeling sorry for people who have a single focus, Tunnel Vision, as they fly Thur the park. You sure miss a lot when you race to that "destination".

However, we are speaking here about the increased visitation numbers, and weather or not the Wolves could have been a factor. I travel probably more than the average person (though certainly not as much as some of the photographers on this forum!) The one thing I have learned in my old age is, this country is FULL of jaw dropping, sensor overload, spectacular places. When considering where to spend your time & money for travel, you have a wealth of options to choose from.

Though it pains me to say this...YS does not have the most spectacular landscape (with the exception of the Thermal Features) in this country. As far as wildlife viewing and photography, there are tons of options. Its true that you wont find them in as high a concentration, but you also wont have to stand shoulder to shoulder with the paparazzi, while watching some crazy w/ a PNS run up to a Grizzly for a full frame shot. As for wildflowers, YS is certainly not at the top of the "must see" destination list. So the question is, Why choose YS over another destination? And personally, why do I return so many times a year when there are so many new places to discover?

For me the answer is simple....Its "ALL" about the apex predators.Its what YS has that no other place in the lower 48 has. Its what adds that magic element... "Drama"! Of all the places I have traveled, no where else do I get that "edge of your seat, hold your breath, close my eyes and tell me when its over" feeling. And it all comes compliments of the predators.

Should the Apex predators all disappear from the park one day, I would still visit. The difference is I would come every 5 years or so, as opposed to the 3-4 times a year I visit now.

Do the Wolves make a difference in the visitation numbers? I don't know for sure, but I'd guess YES! They certainly do for me.

"Wilderness isn't the wide open places, but the wild things that fill it." Chris Morgan

It seems like the wolves provided a big boost to the public interest in the Yellowstone Association courses and to the private wildlife tours (which seem more and more common each time I visit the park). Although I do not have any numbers to support that observation, it seems hard to imagine that these activities would be as popular without wolves. Attendance at those programs may not have had a noticeable impact on overall visitation numbers, however.

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” Isaac Asimov

Northern gate winter numbers went from around 40,000 to over 50,000 after the reintroduction of wolves.Seems likely this was directly tied to wolves (maybe a few more snowmobilers for Cooke City too?).

The economics of gateway towns are marginal. A very short season to make any money. Clients on tight budgets. Limited land for expansion. Limited return on investment. I've watched a few people try it, only to end up bankrupt.Since 2009 there has been a dramatic down turn in the amount of money people want to spend on vacations; Yellowstone can be a very cheap place for a vacation if you live within driving distance and know how to camp. Visitors on a budget spend little in gateway towns. I have noticed winter rates used to be below $40/night in Gardiner and now are nearer $60/night (maybe I just found great deals the first time out?).

It seems the one town which can expand a little is Cody. Driving through in June the town seemed to be booming.Hope it is a good summer for them.

Steve wrote:wolves introduced in 19951995 to 2004 the park averaged 2.93 million visitors per year, an increase of 24%2005 to 2011 the park averaged 3.11 million visitors

I went to my first (and to date only) Yellowstone visit in 2007. For some background, I graduated HS in the mid-90s, went to college for about five or so years and worked a lot during that time. When I got the right job (vacation time), money, and other life things in order, I was finally able to head out to Yellowstone. I had wanted to go for many years with the desire only getting stronger in the 2000s. Wolves played no specific part in this desire. I like outdoor stuff, I like rural areas more than urban areas. I like woodlands and wild animals. To me, wolves were no different than any other animal in Yellowstone.

One thing I would point out is that to visit Yellowstone takes some money, though really not all that much. It can be done on a reasonable vacation budget. The 1995-2004 era seemed to be very good in terms of stock market returns (tech bubble). In 2005-2011, we had the silly house flipping, then collapse. Still, plenty of people had enough paper money to make a trip. After the economic collapse, I feel that plenty of people could still vacation in Yellowstone so long as they had stable employment and not a ton of debt. I've always thought the era of global travel would lessen, and more people would choose more reasonably priced trips like vacations to Yellowstone. In addition, I've heard a lot of China tourist came to the US over the last decade as their economy and upper middle class/upper class took off.

There are likely many factors that are playing into this. Not sure how much wolves played in this. Just so folks know, as a late 70s kid growing up in suburban Indy, I had not idea wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone. I figured they were always there and it wasn't until I started reading up on Yellowstone prepping for my future trip did I learn about the reintroduction.

samparks23 wrote:The fact of the matter is that there is a sizable group of Yellowstone's visitors that likely would not be there if it weren't for wolves, people who spend money at the local hotels, restaurants, gas stations, stores, etc. I, myself, would not spend a month and a couple thousand bucks in Gardiner each winter if it weren't for wolves. There are plenty of people just like me that would not make winter trips to YNP for wildlife photography if it weren't for wolves. This is even more true of the wolf-watchers. Just ask the people who own lodging establishments in Gardiner and Silver Gate/Cooke City what wolves have done for them, especially during the formerly slow time of year; the winter. This economic benefit should not be overlooked or understated.

You used the word "sizable." To me, that would be at least 10%, if not 25%, in terms of numerical value. So what you're saying is that the only reason 300,000-700,000 people go to YNP in any give year is only due to wolves? That if not for wolves, those 300-700K people wouldn't even bother a visit? I just can't see it. I could see maybe 10,000 visitors fitting what you described above, hardly a "sizable group."